"I have been reading your amazing blog and listening to some of your podcasts with Carolyn. Not sure how I haven't run across your work before. Amazing stuff." (reader's comment, 10 May 2016)
Come chat with us! Download and install an IRC-client -- Hexchat is recommended -- and go to the channel #National-Socialism on the Undernet server.

29 July 2015

Shylock as Judge, by Heinrich Haertle -- part 8

A veteran judge of the Moscow Show-Trials played an important role in determining procedure for the International Military Tribunal at Nuremberg.




The Law of Nikitchenko


From Freispruch für Deutschland by Heinrich Haertle
Translated by Hadding Scott, 2015


Jackson's staunchest ally, both now in the preparation and later in the conduct of the trial, is Comrade Nikitchenko, vice-president of the Supreme Court of the Soviet Union, now Stalin's representative in the negotiations at London, major-general of the Red Army, soon to be Soviet judge in Nuremberg. Nikitchenko sweeps away Sir David's concerns about Norway with the pronouncement from the table that such a question would not even be allowed to be raised before the tribunal. The tribunal would simply deem it as “given” that the Germans wanted to attack Norway. Nikitchenko's recommendations become law. Anti-Bolshevik and Bolshevik agree on a procedure whereby only such deeds as could be blamed on the conquered would be allowed to be discussed.

International Law, to which alone whoever claims the judgeship may appeal, must be accordingly stretched for the purpose, to be able to reach the goal of retribution. Sir David goes so far – and Nikitchenko hears this with amusement – that he dares to demand:


What we want to abolish at the trial is a discussion about whether the acts are violations of International Law or not. We declare what the International Law is so that there won't be any discussion on whether it is International Law or not.[DoS publ. 3080, p.99]

Now all legal impediments seem to be eliminated. Only in one central question does considerable doubt occur to the French expert on International Law, Dr. André [Gros]. He opines that it would be morally and politically desirable to make the defeated statesmen and generals responsible for the war, “but that it is not International Law.” (DoS publ. 3080, p. 297)

But for Jackson this is not a problem. He bends International Law as needed and dares to require something that in itself would certainly have sufficed to expose his trial as a mockery of all principles of justice. Jackson responds that Professor André's criticisms seem to leave the tribunal in such a position that it could be justly affirmed that there is no personal responsibility.


We must declare that they are answerable personally, and I am frank to say that International Law is indefinite and weak in our support on that.... [DoS publ. 3080, p. 331]

Now one understands why the Allies waited until four years after their Nuremberg Tribunal to publish the transcript of the preparatory negotiations about the principles of the charter; only in 1949 was it allowed to appear. On pages 104-106 of The Report of Robert H. Jackson, United States Representative to the International Conference on Military Trials, London 1945, published by the U.S. Department of State, is reported a demand by Nikitchenko that can only be designated as the juristic counterpart to Stalin's Katyn-method. With unprecedented impudence Jackson's colleague admits the fundamental law of Soviet class-struggle justice. Bolshevik partinost, partisanism, is set without any reservation as the legal foundation for the international court: 

[GENERAL NIKITCHENKO.] ... [W]ith regard to the position of the judge -- the Soviet delegation considers that there is no necessity in trials of this sort to accept the principle that the judge is a completely disinterested party with no previous knowledge of the case. The declaration of the Crimea Conference is quite clear that the objective is to bring these criminals to a just and speedy trial. Therefore, the judge, before he takes his seat, already knows what has been quoted in the press of all countries, and it is well known about the criminal as accused and the general outline of the case against him. The case for the prosecution is undoubtedly known to the judge before the trial starts and there is, therefore, no necessity to create a sort of fiction that the judge is a disinterested person who has no legal knowledge of what has happened before. If such procedure is adopted that the judge is supposed to be impartial, it  would only lead to unnecessary delays....

... [I]t has been decided that they shall go through a process of trial, but the object of that trial is, of course, the punishment of the criminals, and therefore the role of the prosecutor should be merely a role of assisting the court in the actual cases. [...] [T]he prosecution would assist the judge, and there would be no question that the judge has the character of an impartial person.

That is the classic method of the Bolshevik show-trials. The only totally new thing in it is the fact that legal representatives of cultured European nations themselves in their quest for vengeance lower themselves to the point of applying this anti-justice to a cultured nation. The delegates of English, French, and American justice have never proclaimed it so brutally. But then they accused, judged, and sentenced according to that Stalinist principle that Nikitchenko was permitted to demand from them in all openness:


GENERAL NIKITCHENKO. [...] We are dealing here with the chief war-criminals, who have already been convicted and whose conviction has been already announced by both the Moscow and Crimea declarations by the heads of the governments, and those declarations both declare to carry out immediately just punishment for the offenses which have been committed. [DoS publ. 3080, pp.104-105]

That was on 20 June 1945. One month later, on 19 July 1945, Nikitchenko can again summarize his ideas about an international court in two sentences:


GENERAL NIKITCHENKO.The fact that the Nazi leaders are criminals has already been established. The task of the tribunal is only to determine the measure of guilt of each particular person and mete out the necessary punishment -- the sentences. [DoS publ. 3080, p. 303]

That is Bolshevik legal philosophy from GenrikhYagoda to Hilda Benjamin. The only new part, we must repeat, is that proletarian class-justice is now adopted by the jurists of the Western democracies. No less a figure than the supreme representative of the English legal system, Lord Justice Geoffrey Lawrence, just four years later on 14 May 1949 praised the “competence and impartiality” of the juristic functionaries of Soviet partinost.

“One hand washes the other.” That is also a Russian saying. In exchange for the adoption of Russian trial-methods by the West, the East is ready to suppress a problem that is dangerous for the American and English justice-fanatics: the Anglo-American air-terror.

The silence about this was so complete that the debates about this conundrum are even prevented from being recorded in the transcript of the London negotiations. Only years later did Chief Justice Jackson admit that this question was discussed, and that it was agreed not to charge the Germans with the air-attacks upon civilian populations of which they were supposedly guilty. Otherwise, it would inevitably have been revealed in Nuremberg that the main guilt for terror-bombing, for the most brutal barbarity of the 20th century, belongs to those powers that play the accusers before the International Military Tribunal. With unsurpassable brazenness Jackson admitted:

“This subject would have immediately given rise to a demand for making counter-accusations, which would not have been useful in the trial.”

After they have indefatigably made their conception prevail, the Soviets savor the mockery of justice. Since 1943 they have already liquidated hundreds of thousands of German “Nazis and militarists”; now they begin the complementary “juristic” persecution and plan no less than 200,000 such “trials.” 


27 July 2015

Shylock as Judge, by Heinrich Haertle -- part 7




A Neutral World Court?


From Freispruch für Deutschland by Heinrich Haertle
Translated by Hadding Scott, 2015


That is the signal for Washington: Chief Justice [of the Supreme Court of the United States] Robert H. Jackson is obsessed with the plan to stage a trial of such magnitude as world history has never before seen. Just as the Second World War burst previously existing boundaries and dimensions, so should it end with a legal extravaganza, with a world court such as had never been staged.

Jackson wants to play the role of a lifetime in it as the American lead prosecutor. As President Truman's special commissioner he agitates his way through the continents, promoting his plan for prosecution. In Washington meanwhile the legal snares are being crafted from which no prominent German was supposed to escape. There in the White House Commission Judge Samuel Rosenman examines the legal prerequisites for a trial, aided by Secretary of State Stimson, the Army's advocate-general Bernays, Attorney-General Biddle, and his assistant Herbert Wechsler.

Rosenman's jurists are in no way inhibited by the most obvious objection: that one could not be simultaneously accuser and judge, that it would contradict all American principles of justice if the victors were suppose to act as judges in their own case.

The planned world court could retain the majesty of justice in the eyes of the present and future only if the case of the conquered would be heard not before their enemies but before neutral judges. At least four old cultured states with highly developed jurisprudence were available for this assignment: Switzerland, Spain, Sweden, and Portugal. It seemed to be a pivotal moment in the Law of Nations. Have not states that shirk such an opportunity already thereby proven that they wanted vengeance rather than justice?

With a pretext that could not be more questionable, the later American prosecutor, Brigadier-General Telford Taylor, torpedoes this plan. Such a proposal was “unrealistic,” he opined, “because the number of genuinely neutral countries was so small that this solution would have proven thoroughly unworkable.”

As if it were a question of number, notwithstanding the fact that the requisite number of judges could have been supplied by the neutral states without further ado. The fact that no credible reason for the refusal could be found proves unambiguously that there were other reasons why a genuinely neutral and thus legitimate court would not be allowed. Would not an objective court deserving of the name necessarily have brought the accusations that could be made against German officers and politicians also against American, English, French, and especially Russian war-criminals, if they had committed the same crimes? From that one should not be allowed to exempt oneself!

It would have been most simple if every state had judged its own war-criminals according to its own applicable laws, if a “tabula rasa” was not wanted.

The later denazification demonstrated sufficiently that the Germans were ready to fulfill in an exemplary manner all demands of their occupying powers even in this case. The International Military Tribunal at Nuremberg, in order to maintain the appearance of objectivity, acquitted Hans Fritzsche, the director of Goebbels' ministry, Hitler's vice-chancellor Franz von Papen, and Hitler's president of the Reichsbank and economic minister, Dr. Schacht. It became immediately apparent that the victors could have trusted their Germans: Attorney-General and Chief of Denazification Dr. Dehler[1] solicited additional denunciations from the public so as to be able to prosecute Fritzsche. A prosecutor named Bernhard Mueller lamented before the Nuremberg Denazification Court that he could not demand the death-penalty; Fritzsche was sentenced to ten years in a KZ or labor-camp[2].

The Bavarian Premier of the time, Dr. Hoegner[3], immediately decreed house-arrest for Franz von Papen until the court sentenced him to eight years of KZ or labor-camp. Dr. Schacht was arrested again a few days after his release from Nuremberg and sentenced by the [Stuttgart] Denazification Court to eight years of KZ or labor-camp[4]. The Allies' distrust of German post-war justice was thus thoroughly without cause.

After two months of hectic activity Truman's prosecutor Jackson is on target. On 26 June 1945 the representatives of the four victorious powers meet in London to agree on the basic principles for the planned mammoth process. Although one wants – as formerly in the League of Nations – precisely to do away with secret diplomacy, these deliberations are conducted behind closed doors; their outcome must remain strictly secret. For four years the content of these discussions was to be withheld from the global public. When finally it was deemed no longer dangerous to air this secret, the peoples of the world learn for the first time that there was an intention, already in preparing the tribunal's charter and procedure, to violate all principles of justice that the cultured peoples had developed in a millennium of constant struggle.

There are four conflicts above all that must be concealed, because they deprive the tribunal of legitimacy from the start:


1. How should the court conduct itself if the German defense brings up the fact that other countries also conducted wars of aggression and committed war-crimes?

2 How can men who have committed no crimes be charged and condemned anyway?

3 Could not the politicians of the countries that now are supposed to sit in judgment themselves be held responsible under the same law at some future time?

4 What about the air-attacks on residential areas and the civilian population?

Ultimately, through sophistic manipulations, Jackson succeeds in calming these concerns. He wants to have a tribunal no matter what. Even such justified concerns as those of the British delegate and later English chief prosecutor David Maxwell Fyfe are dispelled. Sir David fears, for example, that the Germans could counter the charges relating to the occupation of Norway with the fact that Hitler had only narrowly prevented Britain's [soon-to-be] wartime prime minister Churchill[5] from occupying Norway himself.

The Western prosecution-experts must ultimately suppress such concerns, if even their Soviet colleagues, despite being guilty of all the accusations that could be made against the Germans, are now finally ready to take all the risks of such a tribunal.

They dare it because they have unique experience with tribunals of this kind. If judges of the most brutal tyranny of all times are determined to portray themselves as fanatics for justice toward the Germans, if the aggressors against Finland, the Baltic States, Poland, Romania, and Japan dare to officiate as prosecutors against German peace-breakers, if jurists of the state that originated from and can continue exist only through crimes against humanity, now pose as advocates for humanity – then the Western jurists would have to suppress their scruples too.
______________________________________________
[1]. The attorney Dr. Thomas Dehler was a Freemason married to a Jewish woman. He lived in Germany throughout the period of National-Socialist rule and, as one might expect, had some friction with that government, finally leading to his expulsion from the Wehrmacht and a sentence of forced labor in 1944.
[2]. The Associated Press on 31 January 1947 reported Fritzsche's sentence as nine years of hard labor. 
[3].  Wilhelm Hoegner was a Social-Democrat installed as Premier of Bavaria in 1945 by Eisenhower, replacing the more conservative Fritz Schaeffer, who had been installed by Patton.
[4]. Haertle misidentifies the location of the tribunal that sentenced Schacht to eight years of labor-camp as Nuremberg in Bavaria. According to the Glasgow Herald, 14 May 1947, it was Stuttgart in Baden-Wuerttemberg. The fact that Schacht received any punishment at all after the war seems to be widely overlooked, giving rise to conspiracy-theories about Schacht as a banker.
[5]. Churchill's position was not yet Prime Minister, but First Lord of the Admiralty, when his plan to invade Norway failed.

24 July 2015

Shylock as Judge, by Heinrich Haertle -- part 6

Stalin knew that he was not in a position to make the kinds of accusations that were made at the post-war International Military Tribunal at Nuremberg. The British and French also had misgivings about how such a trial might turn out, but Washington insisted.



Stalin's Worry


From Freispruch für Deutschland by Heinrich Haertle
Translated by Hadding Scott, 2015



There are obvious reasons for Stalin's distrust of a legalistically structured mammoth process. If, by chance, the counsel for the defense reviewed the defensive war of the tiny Soviet Union against gigantic Finland, the Western judges could find themselves in a dilemma. Stalin also knows what his democratic confederates still do not know, that he was not entirely uninvolved in the preparation for the war against Poland, that he had already made a treaty to secure Polish booty for himself in advance,
in case of German victory. Also, not everyone could have forgotten that he had delivered the coup de grâce to Poland's back as it collapsed. Could it be concealed in such a trial that Stalin had undertaken peaceful plundering-raids in Lithuania, Latvia, Estonia, and southeastern Europe, and had removed entire population-groups? Now he had attacked the Japanese, still in their death-throes, to whom he was obligated by a non-aggression pact.

Stalin had reasons upon reasons to regard these legalistic zealots with distrust.
 

Indeed his Western accomplices were also initially far from being so unanimous as it might later seem. At the beginning of 1945 Roosevelt, apparently recalling his babblings in Teheran, sent to London a prominent member of his “Brain Trust,” Mr. Rosenman, to talk Churchill out of his earlier scruples and to clear the way for the punishment of all German political and military leaders. In his memoirs Rosenman reports that the English would have accepted the plan to shoot leading personages of the Third Reich without trial, but they opposed a public trial because they feared that such an affair could turn into a powerful sounding-board for a reawakening National-Socialist propaganda.
 

In response to Rosenman's mission to London, on 23 April 1945 Sir Cadogan handed to him a memorandum of the English government stating that the procedure that Rosenman had suggested would necessarily generate the impression of a rigged game in which the Allies intended only to ratify a decision already made.

Attacking the pre-war policy of the German leadership seemed especially worrisome to the English. Even Germany's military actions were not war-crimes in the usual sense. It is not at all certain “whether according to the Law of Nations they can be regarded as crimes.”

France had treated the Great German Reich as legitimate and equal, not only at “Munich” but before and after, and until the beginning of the war. Was it possible that men with whom one had dealt diplomatically for years, and whom one had acknowledged as European partners, could then be treated as bandits whose criminal intentions were already known 20 years earlier?

Such concerns oppressed the English even more strongly. Had they not a few years earlier completed the Anglo-German Naval Agreement with the current universal enemy of all humanity and democracy, and recognized de jure and de facto the National-Socialist state and its rearmament? Had not Chamberlain dealt with that “bloodhound” on equal terms, and come to an agreement in a friendly tête à tête with him for “peace in our time”? Did anyone still remember the words of praise from Lloyd George and from Churchill, for Hitler as the Savior of Germany, and as the Defender of the West against the global Communist menace? In Paris and London there is agreement only about this insurmountable discomfort.

Then Churchill's dapper foreign minister, Anthony Eden, has one of his rare inspirations; he finds an elegant way out: the “war-criminals” on the German side should not be immediately shot, nor judged by a lengthy legal process; rather, like Napoleon before them, they should be banished to some godforsaken island. There they could no longer be dangerous, and the need to stage such a problematic mass-murder, or mass-trial, would be obviated.

But, as in their conduct of the war, so too in the treatment of “war-criminals,” France and England had not been independent for a very long time. It was made unmistakably clear to these satellites that Washington would insist on a trial. And almost simultaneously Stalin fired a torpedo in London's direction. On 19 May 1945, Radio Moscow's agitator Yermashev screamed at the Western World:

“One should finally stand them against a wall and shoot them!”



23 July 2015

Shylock as Judge, by Heinrich Haertle -- part 5

In this installment Churchill shows that he was not really so concerned with "the British concept of justice" after all.


Churchill Dissembles


From Freispruch für Deutschland by Heinrich Haertle
Translated by Hadding Scott, 2015


Such and similar cares could have motivated the wartime prime minister at the time. But there is another, later statement from Churchill that seems to confirm that his overloud protest in Teheran was what Stalin had immediately assumed it to be, a fit of histrionics unleashed by brandy.

The contradiction between judicially cloaked revenge in the form of a victors' tribunal, and an indiscriminate mass-execution such as occurred at Katyn, at first remained overt. It crops up again on 9 February 1945, on the sixth day of the Yalta Conference. There, after the Moscow Declaration of 1 November 1943, finally the practical implementation was supposed to follow. Stalin's influence had increased greatly since Teheran. In Yalta now Churchill approaches Stalin cautiously and says something to assure him that his protest at Teheran had been theatrical bluster:

“Originally I was in favor of making a list of the main war-criminals, to identify the specified persons after their capture, and then simply to have them shot.”

(This fact is confirmed yet again in the recent book by Arthur Conte, Yalta, ou le Partage du Monde (1964). Already during this conference at Yalta, Churchill required that a list be compiled of the main war-criminals who should be shot immediately without a trial.)

Now however, Churchill affirms to his “comrade” Stalin that he has in any case reverted to the Moscow Declaration [on Atrocities] that he himself had edited, thus to the preparation for a trial. Stalin does not remain inflexible. By now he has perceived that it would be possible to make some concessions to Western prepossessions without necessarily giving up his own plan of extermination.

As soon as Stalin could get control over German “Nazis,” by which he meant, above all and quite unabashedly, German officers, he initiated his usual swift procedure. Already on 15 December 1943, two weeks after Teheran, three captured German officers were interrogated for show and then publicly shot.

It did not always necessarily happen so ostentatiously. Thousands were liquidated quietly, or died in the so-called prisoner-of-war camps,  the destructive function of which, since Stalingrad, should no longer be in question. Roosevelt wanted to have 49,500, Stalin 50,000, and the younger Roosevelt hundreds of thousands shot en masse without trial. The Red dictator, however, had exceeded these figures with his death-camps long before the plan for a gigantic show-trial against defenseless captives could become reality in such a way as to combine both, the “democratic” and the Stalinist methods.

Shylock as Judge, by Heinrich Haertle -- part 4

Stalin finds that he has friends in the Roosevelt family after Churchill objects to his proposal to murder 50,000 Germans.


Roosevelt Smiles


From Freispruch für Deutschland by Heinrich Haertle
Translated by Hadding Scott, 2015


Stalin has no use for a scandal now and acts as if he had not understood Churchill's “infamy.” The “Generalissimo” turns to Roosevelt, who is still playing keep smiling. In a jesting, flippant tone the American president answers the Bolshevik dictator:

“It is clear that a compromise must be found between your conception, Mr. Stalin, and that of the Prime Minister. We can say perhaps that we agree to, not 50,000 but perhaps a smaller number, let us say about 49,500 war-criminals that should be summarily executed.”

“Compromise,” the American magic formula for solving insoluble problems at this time also has something disturbing about it for the English. Also disturbing is the menacing laughter with which not only the Russians but even the Americans approve the “wit” of their president.

Decades later, one would still like to doubt whether a democratic president who had led his population into war to preserve humanity and justice could, with such cynicism, consent to the murder-plan of the Red Genghis Khan. But we get our account of this scene from his own son, Elliott. The younger Roosevelt participated in the evening session of the Teheran Conference. In his book As He Saw It (Duell, Sloan,and Pearce), published in New York in 1946, he narrated all the details for us (pp.188-191). Eleanor Roosevelt wrote the foreword, so that that this account is authenticated by the president's own family.

Son Elliott reveals that Papa Roosevelt “smiled furtively” during Stalin's first toast to the murder of 50,000 officers.

Stalin seems to have been wounded by Churchill's reproach of “infamy” not so lightly as it initially seemed. That Staling was not merely trying to make one of his uncouth jokes, Elliott's revelation proves; Stalin subsequently approached the scion of the war-president, seeking support.

The younger Roosevelt answers instantly:

"Isn't that all a fairly academic question? Russian, American, and British soldiers are taking care of this problem on the battlefield
for most of these 50,000. And I hope that fate overtakes not only the 50,000 war-criminals but also many hundreds of thousands of Nazis besides.”

Son Elliott thus leaves the mass-murder of officers quite clearly to the “Christian Soldiers,” to American, and – despite Churchill's outburst – to British soldiers, but not without escalating the toll from 49,000 to many hundreds of thousands. He has far surpassed his father's example; the younger Roosevelt pleased Stalin:

Stalin beamed with satisfaction. He came around the table and laid an arm around my shoulders. An outstanding answer! He drank to my health. I blushed with joy.

Churchill was still furious, finding no relief even in brandy, and left the opulent table early, apparently in a thoroughly bad mood. Perhaps he was harried in his dreams by the disturbing crimes of Katyn, about which he must already have known at that time. Why was Stalin supposed to proceed more cautiously with Germany's military elite than with the Polish military elite? Why was he supposed to exterminate German and Polish class-enemies less brutally than the Czarist nobility, the Russian intelligentsia, the Slavic farmers, and all other opponents of his dictatorship?

Roosevelt's assent to Stalin's Mongolic methods – the slaughter without trial, the total negation of all Western principles of justice – had shocked Churchill because it was unexpected. How would the public of the democratic world react to such brutalities?



21 July 2015

Shylock as Judge, by Heinrich Haertle -- part 3

Churchill tries retrospectively to explain why, at the 1943 Teheran Conference, Stalin proposed that at least 50,000 German "war-criminals" must be shot after the war.





The Law of Genghis Khan


From Freispruch für Deutschland by Heinrich Haertle 
Translated by Hadding Scott, 2015


Does Stalin now suddenly want to demolish this laboriously constructed pretense of a pseudo-legal procedure in order to follow the example of Genghis Khan or Tamerlane? --
not to punish but to exterminate, cruelly, but swiftly and thoroughly, without protracted, unconvincing judicial farces? Or do yet other causes motivate Stalin's pointedly deliberate provocation in Teheran?

Nearly a decade later Churchill would examine Stalin's notorious toast for its underlying intentions. In his memoirs he suggested a purely military explanation for it:


Stalin was thinking that the German general staff must be liquidated. The whole striking power of Hitler's mighty armies would depend on about 50,000 officers and specialists. If they were captured and shot at the end of the war, Germany's military strength would be forever broken.

That would be consistent with the ways of Genghis Khan. In that case it is not a matter of democracy, justice, or humanity, or similar Western pretexts: the Katyn Forest Massacre was supposed to be repeated on a larger scale. Just as the intention there was, through the elimination of 15,000 captured Polish officers, at the same time to annihilate the militarily capable Polish nobility and therewith a people's elite, so now was the most militarily and technically gifted class of the German people supposed to be culled through a three-fold Katyn.

Churchill seems to have had scruples about this. Did he already have some foreboding that this military elite, the best in the world at the time, could become a necessary aid for the defense of his island against the Stalinist empire that was victoriously advancing into Europe? Perhaps he foresaw the development, a few years after the catastrophe of 1945, that had to lead to the re-establishment of the German military – and to NATO.

Moral reasons and his brandy-fueled argumentativeness alone would not have triggered his outburst. During that banquet in Teheran it was also Stalin's dismissive smirk that enraged him:


"I would rather have myself led out into the garden and shot right here and now, than to stain my honor and that of my people with such an infamy."


20 July 2015

Shylock as Judge, by Heinrich Haertle -- part 2

In the previous installment, Stalin has proposed before Churchill and Roosevelt at the Teheran Conference in November 1943 that at least 50,000 German “war-criminals” must be executed by firing-squad after the war.





Churchill Protests

From Freispruch für Deutschland by Heinrich Haertle

Translated by Hadding Scott, 2015



The war's icy gust suddenly blows through the besottedly peaceful banquet. Churchill blushes deep red. With a jolt his rotund body shoots up; he gasps for breath. Is it his speech-impediment or his brandy-laden tongue that stops him? Then he bellows into the hall: “Such a course of action stands in stark opposition to the British concept of justice!”

As suddenly as he had risen, he slumps back into his chair.

All gazes turn to Stalin. Malevolently he smirks, twirling his black moustache under his heavy nose, then dismisses Churchill with a questioning glance. Was it brandy, acting, or what? The Generalissimo of the Red Army reaches for his vodka-glass, stands stiffly, and again says:

“50,000 must be shot!”

This is a voice that tolerates no contradiction. Churchill hesitates, but raises himself with difficulty and restates, haltingly but calmly:

“The English people will never allow such mass-murder! I quite resolutely reject summarily handing over anyone, Nazi or not, to an execution-squad without a regular, lawful trial.”

His protest seems to be unconvincing. Was this revulsion genuine? The Western intentions for revenge had already been established since the “Third Inter-Allied Conference” of 13 January 1941 in Saint James' Palace in London. At that time of course one might invoke the Hague Convention, which now, after the war-pact between western democracy and eastern dictatorship, could no longer have jurisdiction. In 1941 it was resolved:
The chief war-aims of the Allies include the punishment of those responsible for these crimes, regardless of whether the particular parties ordered the deeds, committed them themselves, or somehow contributed to them. We are determine to make sure

a) that the guilty and responsible parties, of whatever nationality they may be, having been discovered, be handed over for judgment and condemned;

b) that the pronounced sentences be carried out.


The will for revenge in a guise of legality was even more pointedly expressed on 7 May 1942. That was the occasion of the founding of the “Inter-Allied Commission for War-Crimes,” which was supposed to gather incriminating evidence and to draw up lists of “war-criminals” – consisting only of Germans, of course, not of Italians and Japanese.

Stalin knows about these plans. Just a few days earlier in Moscow, on 1 November 1943, the conference for Allied revenge-justice had been successfully concluded. It ended with the highly promising declaration:
Let those who have hitherto not imbrued their hands with innocent blood beware lest they join the ranks of the guilty, for most assuredly the three Allied powers will pursue them to the uttermost ends of the earth and will deliver them to their accusors in order that justice may be done.
The American Under-Secretary of State Cordell Hull, the British Foreign Minister Eden, and the Soviet Foreign Commissar Molotov determined the text. “The Big Three” signed the document: Roosevelt, Churchill, Stalin.

19 July 2015

Shylock as Judge, by Heinrich Haertle -- part 1



From Freispruch für Deutschland (1965) 
by Heinrich Haertle

Translated by Hadding Scott, 2015



In Teheran at the end of November 1943 the dry Crimean wine flows; it sets the prevailing mood. The “Big Three,” Stalin, Churchill, and Roosevelt, appear in the best of moods. In keeping with the Russian custom, the hours-long evening meal spans twenty courses, interrupted again and again with toasts.

The war and its victims are so far away! On one front, extending from the Black Sea to the Arctic, millions of Russian soldiers at the same time freeze, starve, fight, and die.

Generalissimo Stalin today raises his vodka-glass more often than usual; his black, piercing eyes seem to have lost their gloomy mistrust as he stands for the first toast: “I would like to offer a toast to the splendid weather that we are enjoying!”

They drink to this with amusement; the English and American guests eagerly try to comport themselves in the most “Russian” manner possible.

Roosevelt drinks without regard for his physician's warnings, aswim in relaxed feelings.

Somewhere in North Africa, in Europe, and in Asia, American soldiers, whose destiny he never shared, fight, bleed, and fall.

Winston Churchill also cannot resist the boisterous mood. He had arrived fairly sullen and could not suppress some biting comments about his Soviet “comrades.” Instead of Crimean wine Stalin orders for Churchill, in accord with his wish, champagne, vodka, and his beloved brandy. He drinks often and precipitately; the ruddiness in his massive visage intensifies from glass to glass as he listens smiling broadly to Stalin's indecent jokes.

Somewhere English soldiers are fighting and dying on the Mediterranean, in Asia, in Europe, in the air-war over Germany. Somewhere English civilians tremble and die under the retaliatory strikes of the Luftwaffe.

Churchill has waged war his entire life, but rarely exposed himself to the hardships of life on the front. All of that now is infinitely distant, and old and new cares are washed away with brandy.

Stalin rises yet again: “I would like to offer a toast to the future deliveries of war-materiel!”

Roosevelt and Churchill and their retinues display cheerful countenances to the hellish game. Keep smiling! Again and again: stand up and toast, drink, sit, eat; stand up and toast again. Toward the end of the gluttony, Stalin raises himself one more time, surveys under the influence of vodka his companions from the democratic-capitalist West, bends forward and then bellows hoarsely over the table:

“I drink to the swiftest possible justice for all German war-criminals. I drink to the justice of a firing-squad!”

Suddenly all are silent. Churchill stares in shock at the uneasily smiling Roosevelt. Stalin remains standing; his yellowy face becomes paler. He then restates coldly and acerbically:

“I suggest we drink to the most rapid possible punishment of all German war-criminals – punishment by an execution squad. I drink to our unity in finishing them as soon as we take all of them prisoner, and there are at least 50,000 of them!”

18 July 2015

Heinrich Haertle's Foreword to Acquittal for Germany (1965)

Holocaustians, like for example Michael Shermer in his appearance with Bradley Smith on the Donahue show in 1994, sometimes like to assert that the Germans themselves accept all the accusations made against them regarding the Second World War and the so-called Holocaust. This is the ultimate way to make an accusation appear uncontested: the accused themselves agree.

Today it is illegal in Germany to question aspects of Allied war-propaganda. Consequently it is unfair to point to some Germans who refrain from disputing the accusations against them (like the accountant Oskar Groening, who was put on trial recently at age 95, and sentenced to 4 years in prison, simply for having been present at Auschwitz) because publicly questioning the fundamental accusations against Germany is absolutely not allowed, and these accused individuals will only make matters worse for themselves by disputing. But it was not always so.

Heinrich Haertle (1909 - 1986) was not only a German but a prominent National-Socialist imprisoned by the victorious powers until 1948, who most definitely did not accept all the accusations. In his book Freispruch für Deutschland, Haertle questioned many elements of the continuing anti-German propaganda, including the Jewish "genocide" propaganda -- which at that time, in 1965, was only beginning to seize the position of central importance in the story of the war that it holds today.

Heinrich Haertle is probably best known to anglophones because of the brief mention of him by Jewish professor Walter Kaufmann in The Portable Nietzsche, where he nitpicked Haertle for omitting the context (which did not affect the meaning) of a Nietzsche-quote about "the young stock-market Jew" (der jugendliche Börsen-Jude) in his book Nietzsche und der Nationalsozialismus (1937).


Foreword to Freispruch für Deutschland
by Heinrich Haertle

Translated by Hadding Scott, 2015


On July 27, 1946, during the greatest tribunal in world history, Sir Hartley Shawcross screamed that the German army had been commanded not by honorable soldiers but instead by “heartless murderers.”

Such and similar calumnies have poisoned the climate between Germany and the other peoples since 1945. Only Germans are to blame for the Second World War; only Germans committed war-crimes: this was said to be the finding of the greatest legal process of all times.

Against this judgment no appeal was legally possible; it was specified thus in the charter of this universal court. But why does the government of the Federal Republic of Germany not summon all political and contemporary-historical means to revise this disgraceful finding?

After 1918 too, Germany was burdened with sole guilt for the World War; by 1919 however the German government of the time was already promulgating a “German White Book on Guilt for the War” whereby the struggle against the verdict of Versaille was begun.

Yet twenty years after 1945 there is no official defense: neither against the second war-guilt lie nor against the slander of “war-crimes.” On the contrary, the Nuremberg guilty-verdict is today the psychological and political foundation for further unimaginable trials in the next 20 years.

In contrast to this irresponsible abdication by officialdom, individual publishers and authors have initiated the struggle for historical truth. But the more clearly the war-guilt dogmatists are refuted, the louder become their accusations against “war-criminals” – of course, only against German ones.

Meanwhile anti-Jewish pogroms have been pushed ever more insistently into the foreground. Thus these questions too necessarily become an important matter for historical dispute.

A critique of the Nuremberg finding must first investigate the following questions: was the war for the actualization of the German right to self-determination in 1939 in any way a crime punishable under the law of nations? How great is the German and the Allied share in the war-crimes from 1939 to 1945? Who bears responsibility for the partisan-war and terror-bombing? What kind of blame goes to atrocity-propaganda for making the war more brutal?

More and more grave, however, are the questions about the scope and causes of the secret crimes against Jews. They supply anti-German propaganda with its most dangerous arguments , and therefore demand a precise and thorough examination: were only Germans guilty of anti-Semitism? What part did Jewry have in the belligerence of Americanism and of Bolshevism? Did only Germans or, alternately, did only Jews incur guilt?

Today none of these questions can be shirked any longer. In Nuremberg they were decided only by the interest of the enemy powers.

Where is Germany's defense?

The following work undertakes the attempt to revise the judgment at Nuremberg. It can only be a beginning, because the quantity of the material is too much for just one person. The trial-transcript runs to 16,000 pages; 240 witnesses, 300,000 sworn declarations, and 5,300 documents were presented. Nonetheless, this effort must be initiated. It will take a whole generation of researchers, however, to complete such a task.

Chief Justice Jackson called the International Military Tribunal the “continuation of the Allied war-efforts.” Attorney General Dr. Bauer declared that the material from Nuremberg would be made the foundation for all further political trials. And in the Soviet government's proposed peace-treaty with Germany is required, as a preamble: “Germany acknowledges the finding of the International Military Tribunal in Nuremberg, and the findings of other courts
Gustav Stresemann
(1878-1929)
for which the charter of this tribunal provides, regarding crimes committed both inside and outside of Germany.”

Should we continue to submit to this judgment of guilt?

Or ought we not, rather, to take to heart Stresemann's admonition: “As long as a member of the community of nations is branded a criminal against humanity, there can be no true understanding and reconciliation of the nations.”[*]


The Author. 
_____________________________________________________
*Stresemann of course, who died in 1929, was referring to the guilt-propaganda following the First World War. By quoting Stresemann, Haertle  implies that the guilt-propaganda after both World Wars is essentially the same -- which is to say, unfounded. Weight is added to Stresemann's words by the fact that he was awarded a Nobel Peace Prize in 1926.